I've played a few times today (rules are online, and a message translating the cards).
Initial feeling — not bad; clearly influenced by Caylus. [In Caylus you use colored cubes to build a City. Here you use colored cubes to build a Cathedral.] Similar mechanisms — take turns placing workers, then "walk a path" activating each in order.
Pillars of the Earth (the translated name) has a few catches. First, each player places exactly three overseers (workers from Caylus). But turns are ordered randomly (drawn from a bag). The first overseer costs seven dollars, the next six, etc. If you don't want to pay, you pass. (Prices still drop). After all paid placements, the passed overseers are put on the board.
Before the 'worker placement,' players draft cards. Some convert meeples into resources. Each player starts with 12 laborers, and any not used to get resources earn $1. You can also buy craftsman. Craftsman convert resources to VPs. [For example, masons convert stones to VPs. A poor one may need two stones to make a VP, a great one may make 2 VPs from a single stone].
So you take turns drafting resources or craftsman (which cost meeple or money), then everyone places three overseers, then you "walk the path," resolving the overseers. A random event, one space that protects from the event or earns a wild resource, some special bonus cards, earn resources, bonus VPs, and the like. The ordering of the path isn't as constraining as Caylus; its not really a constraint here.
Play for six turns and done.
There's a fair amount of luck. The same four craftsman come out on the first turn, second turn, etc, getting better. But two are drafted (costing money) and two are claimed via an overseer (which may cost money for the overseer, but you don't pay the drafting cost). There are 8-10 random events, some good, some bad. There are "advantage" cards that can be claimed (again, for an overseer).
The real question — will the luck help or hurt the game's audience? Pillars may be a backgammon to Caylus' chess. I suspect there's enough luck to allow OK players to defeat good players sometimes, but not enough to really let things get out of hand.
For example, the start player can reject an overseer draw and redraw, once per turn. The events affect everyone equally (unless a player went to the Bishop, he'll protect you from a bad event ... or give you a resource). The advantage cards are random, but you see them before claiming (unlike magic cards in Aladdin's Dragons). Taxation affects all players (who don't spend an overseer at court).
Like Caylus, the game centers around interconnected scarcity. You have 12 laborers, who can be spent on resources or money. You have three overseers, and you have to deal with paying money (to get them out early) or scarcity of good places (if you save money). You have five craftsman slots, but they are constantly improving, so they wind up acting like Power Grid's plants. Craftsman cost money or one of your overseer actions.
It's tough to judge after a few games, but money seems tight (and useful) all game. In the last turn, players may need to spend a large chunk of cash getting a key overseer spot, or to buy a prime craftsman. Money doesn't convert to VP, but there some craftsman who can.
So, same basic premise, but the luck may help it reach a wider audience. Of course, hardcore Caylus players may turn up their noses. Who knows? In any case, worth checking out.
Update: After a total of 8 plays online, I feel confident stating that Saulen doesn't have near the staying power of Caylus. I don't find myself thinking about this much, and I'm not sure how often I'll play. I'll probably get in another 5-10, just because it's online. But I think the criticisms in the comment thread are valid. I think it's strongest with three.
The problem seems to me that the randomness is poorly allocated. The core of the play experience — the part of the game that seems to shape plans and tactics — is the craftsmen and the advantage cards, both of which are heavily scripted. Meanwhile, the architect placement (on the sections of the board) sequence is heavily random, which only serves to occasionally frustrate rather than genuinely mixing things up.
I would be happier if the craftsmen and advantages were parcelled into two-round groups (so 8 craftsmen and 4 advantages in a parcel) and then drawn randomly from the appropriate parcel for the current turn. Meanwhile, I think only one architect form each player should be put in the bag at a time, so that no one can get screwed too heavily by the luck of the draw. Whether to keep the first player's right to reject one drawn architect is borderline for me — either keeping it or removing it would be fine by me.
I feel that these changes would increase the variability of the game from play to play a little while removing the most annoying random screwage aspect of the game.
It's a tough balance ... they need enough luck to provide variability, but not enough to make luck decide.
And Pillars may not be a good two player game, but your points apply equally with more. In fact, I just played a 4 player game where I got shafted last turn (My first craftsman came 8th out of 12). Another player got horrible early draws (1st, 2nd, 3rd draw on first two turns). That's certainly odds against; but it happens.
I may be misunderstanding scoring. On the last turn nobody scored the points I had counted them for. Either I miscounted everyone (including myself, and i only had one craftsman of each type), or theres a bug on BSW, or I've got a rule wrong....
While I'm not a huge fan of Piilars, it's certainly not bad enough to warrant an SdJ nod. :pirate:
Actually, in thining about it now, this does prevent one form of bad luck (AAABBB). But getting three items in a row is often a mixed blessing (or a curse). I think if I were A, I'd rather get ABABAB than AAABBB.
Second, wouldn't my "fix" avoid AAABBB? Or are you arguing in favour of the idea?